[gentoo-amd64] Re: Symlinks vs. Bind mounts.
Matthias Bethke [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Thu, 14 Aug 2008 00:54:48 +0200: I have two 500G disks, mirrored in a software-RAID0 on all partitions but swap which is on two separate 16G partitions. OK, if it's RAID-0, it's striped, not mirrored, and you have NO redundancy at all. If either of those disks fails, your SOL. If it's mirrored, you meant RAID-1. I might have let it pass, but if you think you're mirrored (RAID-1) and are striped (RAID-0) instead, you could be in for one NASTY surprise if one of the disks dies. So I thought it wise to post and warn you, just in case it WASN'T just a typo and you screwed up, BEFORE something happens and you lose the data. But you're correct about swap, at least if you have them set at the same priority. The kernel will automatically stripe across all swap partitions set at the same priority, so if you have multiple disks, put a swap partition on each and set the priority equal (in fstab if you automate swap loading from there), and the kernel will automatically stripe them, increasing your swap performance accordingly. =8^) -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master. Richard Stallman
[gentoo-amd64] Re: emerge --resume question
andrew [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Wed, 13 Aug 2008 17:38:52 -0400: No, this is incorrect. emerge -f --resume does not cross packages off the resume list. What you want to do should work properly. Hmm. New to me! (Obviously.) =8^) -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master. Richard Stallman
Re: [gentoo-amd64] Re: emerge --resume question
Duncan wrote: andrew [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Wed, 13 Aug 2008 17:38:52 -0400: No, this is incorrect. emerge -f --resume does not cross packages off the resume list. What you want to do should work properly. Hmm. New to me! (Obviously.) =8^) Well I'll give it a shot and let you know what happens. :) -- Libenter homines id quod volunt credunt -- Caius Julius Caesar Mark Haney Sr. Systems Administrator ERC Broadband (828) 350-2415 Call (866) ERC-7110 for after hours support
Re: [gentoo-amd64] Re: emerge --resume question
Mark Haney wrote: Hmm. New to me! (Obviously.) =8^) Well I'll give it a shot and let you know what happens. :) Yep, I could do an 'emerge -f --resume' and have it fetch the files without trouble, then an 'emerge --resume' gets me right back where I needed to be with the resume. Well done, gentoo devs. That's a lifesaver. (Or a Now Later, or gobstopper) -- Libenter homines id quod volunt credunt -- Caius Julius Caesar Mark Haney Sr. Systems Administrator ERC Broadband (828) 350-2415 Call (866) ERC-7110 for after hours support
Re: [gentoo-amd64] Re: Symlinks vs. Bind mounts.
Duncan wrote: But you're correct about swap, at least if you have them set at the same priority. The kernel will automatically stripe across all swap partitions set at the same priority, so if you have multiple disks, put a swap partition on each and set the priority equal (in fstab if you automate swap loading from there), and the kernel will automatically stripe them, increasing your swap performance accordingly. =8^) Note that in such a situation if either disk fails you're likely to end up with a panic when your swap device isn't accessible. If uptime is a concern mirrored swap is better (but slower). Of course, if you're running on consumer hardware chances are that computer is going to fail if a drive hangs up in any case - most motherboards don't handle drive failures gracefully, but server-class hardware usually isolates drives so that a drive failure doesn't take down the system. If the bulk of your data is mirrored you'll get everything back on reboot after removing the bad drive. However, you will likely lose anything in memory. smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: [gentoo-amd64] Re: Symlinks vs. Bind mounts.
Hi Duncan, on Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 08:07:40AM +, you wrote: I have two 500G disks, mirrored in a software-RAID0 on all partitions but swap which is on two separate 16G partitions. OK, if it's RAID-0, it's striped, not mirrored, and you have NO redundancy at all. If either of those disks fails, your SOL. If it's mirrored, you meant RAID-1. Ouch---you're right of course, it's RAID-1. Not the first time I confused the two but the setup is indeed mirrored ;) cheers, Matthias -- I prefer encrypted and signed messages. KeyID: FAC37665 Fingerprint: 8C16 3F0A A6FC DF0D 19B0 8DEF 48D9 1700 FAC3 7665 pgprghKLYYdlc.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-amd64] Re: Symlinks vs. Bind mounts.
Hi Richard, on Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 02:08:26PM -0400, you wrote: Note that in such a situation if either disk fails you're likely to end up with a panic when your swap device isn't accessible. If uptime is a concern mirrored swap is better (but slower). Of course, if you're running on consumer hardware chances are that computer is going to fail if a drive hangs up in any case - most motherboards don't handle drive failures gracefully, but server-class hardware usually isolates drives so that a drive failure doesn't take down the system. True, that's a risk I figured I could live with. It's actually a server board but in a regular tower case and w/o hot-swappable drives, and I'm not controlling my iron lung with it :) cheers, Matthias -- I prefer encrypted and signed messages. KeyID: FAC37665 Fingerprint: 8C16 3F0A A6FC DF0D 19B0 8DEF 48D9 1700 FAC3 7665 pgph9TSmrVXby.pgp Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-amd64] Re: Symlinks vs. Bind mounts.
Richard Freeman [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Thu, 14 Aug 2008 14:08:26 -0400: Duncan wrote: But you're correct about swap[...] at the same priority Note that in such a situation if either disk fails you're likely to end up with a panic when your swap device isn't accessible. If uptime is a concern mirrored swap is better (but slower). Correct. However, I'm not too worried about a crash. In fact, I don't even have a UPS here, tho it's on my list again now that I switched to LCDs from CRTs. If the bulk of your data is mirrored you'll get everything back on reboot after removing the bad drive. However, you will likely lose anything in memory. That's the plan. As long as I don't lose the data on the RAID-6 (and RAID-1, to boot with), I'm fine. I don't have a spare drive to repair to either, tho I could buy one relatively quickly if necessary. But I did deliberately choose RAID-6 with double redundancy over RAID-5 with single redundancy and a hot-spare. Of course, if three of the four go out before I can get at least one repaired, I'm still SOL, but that's a chance I'm willing to take, and a serious improvement over the backup-copy-on-a-different-partition-on-the- same-spindle scheme I was using before. It's only my hobby, after all, not holding a month or year's income dependency, and if I had that many drives die at once, chances are I'd have bigger problems, and would be looking at buying a whole new computer, and possibly a whole new house, anyway. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master. Richard Stallman
